Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

[YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>]

Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>
> Hi,
>
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for buster, we request
> that DSA, the security team and the toolchain maintainers review and
> update their list of known concerns for buster release architectures.
>
> Summary of the current concerns and issues:
>  * DSA have announced a blocking issue for armel and armhf (see below)
>  * Concerns from DSA about ppc64el and s390x have been carried over from
>    stretch.
>  * Concerns from the GCC maintainers about armel, armhf, mips, mips64el
>    and mipsel have been carried over from stretch.
>
> If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date,
> then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o and
> debian-ports@l.d.o in CC to ensure both parties are notified).
>
> Whilst porters remain ultimately responsible for ensuring the
> architectures are ready for release, we do expect that you / your team
> are willing to assist with clarifications of the concerns and to apply
> patches/changes in a timely manner to resolve the concerns.
>
>
> List of blocking issues by architecture
> =======================================
>
> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
> table.
>
> armel/armhf:
> ------------
>
>  * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020.  armhf VM
>    support uncertain. (DSA)
>    - Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>
>
> [DSA Sprint report]:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/02/msg00004.html
>
>
> List of concerns for architectures
> ==================================
>
> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
> table.
>
>  * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent on sponsors for
>    hardware.
>    (Raised by DSA; carried over from stretch)
>
>  * Concern for armel and armhf: only secondary upstream support in GCC
>    (Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)
>
>  * Concern for mips, mips64el, mipsel and ppc64el: no upstream support
>    in GCC
>    (Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)
>

This is a misunderstanding as MIPS company had some unrest in recent half year.
Currently we are stable now, and the shape of gcc upstream is also good.

>
> Architecture status
> ===================
>
> These are the architectures currently being built for buster:
>
>  * Intel/AMD-based: amd64, i386
>  * ARM-based: arm64, armel, armhf
>  * MIPS-based: mips, mipsel, mips64el

We are plan to drop mips(eb) and keep mipsel/mips64el.

>  * Other: ppc64el, s390x
>
> If the blocking issues cannot be resolved, affected architectures are at
> risk of removal from testing before buster is frozen.
>
> We are currently unaware of any new architectures likely to be ready in
> time for inclusion in buster.
>
> On behalf of the release team,
> Niels Thykier
>


-- 
YunQiang Su